backthepack
New Fish
Savell no showed FSP and then talked shit about kids in the program. Confirmed.
Gee Scott Jr, 4* 2020 WR, Bellevue (Eastside Catholic), WA (Offered 6/19)
- Thread starter FrenchHusky
- Start date
LaMichael_Corleone
New Fish
This looks like the Rose Bowl tailgate because that white van back there has about 20 of my drunk dollars that I paid for some shitty soggy Mexican hot dog And yes the toilet experience from that is exactly how you would imagine.
1to392831weretaken
New Fish
My assumptions/understanding:
1.) This kid, according to 247FS, is the #2 player in the state, a top-70 player overall in the country, a top-15 receiver in the country, and he's right in UW's backyard. That an offer came this late is not random, "different evaluation," or any of that bullshit. There was something--or somethings--that caused the Washington staff to pass on this kid or he'd have had an offer a year ago.
2.) The lack of offer, justified or not, has stirred up bad blood between UW and Gee and possibly a few other targets. This damage is done and cannot be unseen.
3.) There is a less than 0% chance that he decommits from Ohio State and takes Washington up on their offer.
If all of these things are true, is this offer strategically beneficial? I'm struggling to see the benefit at this point.
1.) This kid, according to 247FS, is the #2 player in the state, a top-70 player overall in the country, a top-15 receiver in the country, and he's right in UW's backyard. That an offer came this late is not random, "different evaluation," or any of that bullshit. There was something--or somethings--that caused the Washington staff to pass on this kid or he'd have had an offer a year ago.
2.) The lack of offer, justified or not, has stirred up bad blood between UW and Gee and possibly a few other targets. This damage is done and cannot be unseen.
3.) There is a less than 0% chance that he decommits from Ohio State and takes Washington up on their offer.
If all of these things are true, is this offer strategically beneficial? I'm struggling to see the benefit at this point.
GreenRiverGatorz
New Fish
I don't accept for a second that #2 is true. This would absolutely help with optics and relationships.
1to392831weretaken
New Fish
Hmm. The last time somebody died on a hill arguing with Ballz about a player committing to UW, that player committed to UW. Should I take one for the team?...
Last edited:
sinceredawg
Member
Scotts aren't going to crow about this one. They've been disrespected and they're going to take this apology with some cool. But there's been some negotiation behind the scenes that brought this down today. Scotts want to be at UW. UW needs Jr. This is going to come together, but it's going to be smooth and take a while to materialize.
Meek
New Fish
[/b]
firstly, the fact that Huffman announced and none of the Scotts did is unfortunately not a good look.
that said.... my guess is that Pete and Gee have been communicating with each other and that this is not a random nor unexpected result. Whether Gee (both of them) give a shit or not is a different question, but I do tend believe that this is something resulting from a private relationship building respect and trust between them.
Who knows, though.
LaMichael_Corleone
New Fish
Will you just shut the fuck up for one fucking day?
Ballz
New Fish
Again, that's not out of the norm and it's what you would expect from an OKG. It's not a bad sign. He's being respectful towards Ohio State. UW commits very rarely announce new offers on Twitter. It's just about being respectful to the the school you're currently committed to. Doesn't mean he's not interested in UW.
Last edited:
GreenRiverGatorz
New Fish
I'll go ahead and answer that. No, he won't.
1to392831weretaken
New Fish
Only if something changed in a way that explains the offer. Otherwise, it just makes the program look hypocritical.
Looking at it as ghetto block diagrams:
[reason for lack of offer] [no offer] [conflict with recruits] ---> time ---> [no change] [no offer] ["we're a principled program sticking to our guns"]
[reason for lack of offer] [no offer] [conflict with recruits] ---> time ---> [no change] [offer] ["never mind, we were just kidding about that whole 'OKG' thing"]
[reason for lack of offer] [no offer] [conflict with recruits] ---> time ---> [reason for lack of offer corrected] [offer] ["anybody can be OKG if they're dedicated enough"]
One of those three is not like the other, and it's not a good look to the other 90+% of the prospects that the program is trying to attract with BFL and OKG and all that bullshit. Unfortunately, it's impossible to know which of these three scenarios it is without knowing the source of the original conflict and the (hopefully) resolution to that concern. And I doubt either of these things nuggets are something that the staff is going to be offering up to recruits, hence the struggle to see the benefit of this.
Last edited:
